On Tue, 02 Jul 2013 23:20:31 -0400, shawn wilson wrote:
> The point about mentioning browsers is that you don't generally look
> there.
The other point about browsers is that when I look at my home directory
with firefox, the dotfiles take up most of the visual space.
-- hendrik
--
To UNSUBS
On Thu, 04 Jul 2013 23:55:38 +0100, Chris Davies wrote:
> Slavko wrote:
>> Dňa 02.07.2013 23:32 John Hasler wrote / napísal(a):
>>> Look at the access times. Dotfiles that have not been accessed in
>>> years can probably be safely removed.
>
>> Sure, but do not forget, that the "relatime" (defau
On Thu, 04 Jul 2013 03:12:40 +1200, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 01:08:05AM +, Hendrik Boom wrote:
>> On Tue, 02 Jul 2013 16:06:17 -0500, Yaro Yaro wrote:
>>
>> > Package managers don't track .dotfiles.
>>
>> No, they don't. That, of course, is part of the problem.
>
>
Slavko wrote:
> Dňa 02.07.2013 23:32 John Hasler wrote / napísal(a):
>> Look at the access times. Dotfiles that have not been accessed in years
>> can probably be safely removed.
> Sure, but do not forget, that the "relatime" (default one) and "noatime"
> mount options are going into play, then t
On 2013-07-03 00:43:39 +, Hendrik Boom wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Jul 2013 19:02:08 -0400, shawn wilson wrote:
>
> > Y'all are really taking all of the fun out of this.
> >
> > Here's the point - this is an exercise. There is no good reason to do
> > this. What, you've got a 10 meg disk that is at 9
Dňa 02.07.2013 23:32 John Hasler wrote / napísal(a):
> Look at the access times. dotfiles that have not been accessed in years
> can probably be safely removed.
>
Sure, but do not forget, that the "relatime" (default one) and "noatime"
mount options are going into play, then the results can be
On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 01:08:05AM +, Hendrik Boom wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Jul 2013 16:06:17 -0500, Yaro Yaro wrote:
>
> > Package managers don't track .dotfiles.
>
> No, they don't. That, of course, is part of the problem.
Ummm, no it isn't. It is a serious bug if any package interferes with
f
The point about mentioning browsers is that you don't generally look
there. Unix convention is to only lead config (or otherwise hidden)
files with a dot. If you do an ls -a, you're asking to see these
files, so I don't see how they're polluting your namespace. I'm much
prefer to have file metadata
On Tue, 02 Jul 2013 16:06:17 -0500, Yaro Yaro wrote:
> Package managers don't track .dotfiles.
No, they don't. That, of course, is part of the problem.
But it would be useful if packages were to have a standard format for
declaring what dotfiles the package is in charge of. Much like the way
On Tue, 02 Jul 2013 19:02:08 -0400, shawn wilson wrote:
> Y'all are really taking all of the fun out of this.
>
> Here's the point - this is an exercise. There is no good reason to do
> this. What, you've got a 10 meg disk that is at 95%? Well, if you pay
> shipping, I've got a extra 40 meg that
Heh. Thanks for filling in the gaps.
(Although, I would point out that every killer app today started as
somebody's fun project yesterday, so there's no reason to discourage them.
Bits of what we've seen of the road ahead, yeah, let them make up their
minds about which way they go.)
On Wed, Jul 3
Y'all are really taking all of the fun out of this.
Here's the point - this is an exercise. There is no good reason to do
this. What, you've got a 10 meg disk that is at 95%? Well, if you pay
shipping, I've got a extra 40 meg that I use as a book end that I'll
send you.
Keep the files or delete t
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 6:28 AM, shawn wilson wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > On Tuesday 02 July 2013 22:06:17 Yaro Yaro wrote:
> >> On Jul 2, 2013 3:49 PM, "Hendrik Boom" wrote:
> >> > There are lots of .dotfiles cluttering my home directory.
> >> >
> >> > No doub
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 5:24 PM, Joel Rees wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 5:48 AM, Hendrik Boom wrote:
>>
>
>>
>> And which ones are obsolete -- the user equivalent of configuration
>> files, which are properly tracked by the package manager?
>
>
> The violence option? As in, mv all the .files t
Look at the access times. dotfiles that have not been accessed in years
can probably be safely removed.
--
John Hasler
jhas...@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debia
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> On Tuesday 02 July 2013 22:06:17 Yaro Yaro wrote:
>> On Jul 2, 2013 3:49 PM, "Hendrik Boom" wrote:
>> > There are lots of .dotfiles cluttering my home directory.
>> >
>> > No doubt some of them are useful.
>> >
>> > Many, though, are probably re
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 5:48 AM, Hendrik Boom wrote:
> There are lots of .dotfiles cluttering my home directory.
>
> No doubt some of them are useful.
>
> Many, though, are probably remnants of packages of years past -- packages
> I installed long ago, no longer need, and have removed.
>
> Is ther
On Tuesday 02 July 2013 22:06:17 Yaro Yaro wrote:
> On Jul 2, 2013 3:49 PM, "Hendrik Boom" wrote:
> > There are lots of .dotfiles cluttering my home directory.
> >
> > No doubt some of them are useful.
> >
> > Many, though, are probably remnants of packages of years past -- packages
> > I installe
Package managers don't track .dotfiles. Those are created at runtime by
your software.
On Jul 2, 2013 3:49 PM, "Hendrik Boom" wrote:
> There are lots of .dotfiles cluttering my home directory.
>
> No doubt some of them are useful.
>
> Many, though, are probably remnants of packages of years past
19 matches
Mail list logo
